One correction: the off duty deputy was a FEMALE I actually read this this morning on facebook. According to that source, the perpetrator went to a restaurant to kill his ex-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people fled next door to the theater, to where he followed them and attempted to shoot more. This is the perfect example of a private citizen preventing a bad guy from causing further destruction by using her own gun.

Woops... I stand correct. Thanks

Sadly... this is one reason I hate the main stream media. They take something like the CT shooting and just beat it to death, but then you have this shooting in TX that could have been a LOT worse than it was but because the gunman was stopped by a citizen it doesn't get hardly any air time. What... not gruesome enough for the MSM?

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

N2Deep, you can't cherry-pick the parts of the 2nd Amendment that you like and disregard the other. You have to address the law in its entirety. Remember, I actually agree with you and own guns myself. But I have to say, LeRainDrop's arguments are more compelling and well documented.

What am I cherry picking about the 2nd Admendment? I support the entire thing from the milita to the people. It's that most folks want to pretend the part about the people is not there.

N2Deep wrote:

I know I haven't seen any articles recently, but quite a while back you kept seeing articles about this militia or that militia getting raided by the feds. If that is the case... then why would you want to be a formal part of a militia?

"Cherry-picking" is a poor choice of words on my part. You did mention it, but didn't actually address it. Instead, you formed a question about it when the actual Amendment implied that it was a precondition for the rights of gun ownership. LeRainDrop addressed it with some court rulings, so I'm willing to let the matter drop.

It's all good. I just wanted you to know that I support the whole 2nd Admendment, not just the part about the people. It's just that most folks want to get hung up on the term militia and then forget there is another part the the 2nd Admendment. I will admit that LeRainDrop did a good job of addressing things. I was on a time cruch when I was posting last and didn't have time to look up the rulings.

If you interested in the militia part... I read somewhere that some states actually have some wording to the fact in their own state constitutions. Might be something to try and dig up.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

The City of Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Up until a few months ago, it was illegal for a private citizen to own or possess a handgun anywhere within the city, including in one’s own home. For 2010, Chicago also holds another distinction. More Chicago Police Officers were killed by gunfire this year than any other police agency in the nation. The city also boasts one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, with 1 in 89 residents being victims of violent crime last year.

wanna know why they have the highest violent crime rate in the country. The people cant fight back and protect themselves. The criminals and cops are the only ones with weapons.

How do you know it's not because criminals bring in guns from outside the city where they're easily obtained? Statistics are statistics and I'm fine with that. But you don't give any real evidence for what you claim is cause and effect.

We will never know where the weapons were obtained. The evidence is simple though. Chicago is a gun free zone, but the criminals and the cops have guns. The only folks that don't have guns to protect themselves are the law abiding citizens. This makes them an easy target. Thus the massive amount of violent crimes in Chicago. Do you know that Chicago is more violent than New York City, and NYC has more than 3 times the population of Chicago.

The point I was trying to make is... if you take away our right to defend ourselves then you make us an easy target for those that wish to do us harm. Chicago is a prime example of this. It's also a prime example that tougher gun laws do nothing to curb gun crimes, but instead make it worse. The only thing criminals in Chicago have to fear is cops and other criminals. The citizens can't do anything to harm them.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

N2Deep, this one's special for you from my local news today -- another good story of why I'm glad the people have the right to keep and bear arms: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

N2Deep, this one's special for you from my local news today -- another good story of why I'm glad the people have the right to keep and bear arms: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

Glad the wife and kids were ok.

Quote:

In February, Slater was arrested on simple battery charges, according to the Gwinnett County Sheriff's Office. He has been arrested six other times in the county since 2008.

My guess is she saved herself and her kids a world of hurt. If you break in when folks are home... you plan on causing pain. Wonder if he learned his lesson this time?

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

I've always been troubled by "gun-free school zones." On airplanes, and in restricted-access buildings such as courthouses where we can comprehensively (or very nearly) screen every single entrant to make sure they're not carrying a gun, having the restriction makes sense. But when we put up signs in certain areas saying "no guns allowed" and we do not enforce it except accidentally, we should not be surprised that it serves as an attractive target to homicidal lunatics. And attempting to ban "assault weapons" and larger-capacity magazines in an attempt to make a statistically rare form of murder slightly more inconvenient for a few people every year strikes me as making political theater at the expense of good legislation.

I don't think there's any current way to "round up" the few hundred million firearms in the US without running afoul of the Second Amendment (as interpreted in DC v. Heller). And though universal registration requirements would probably pass constitutional muster (again, as interpreted by DC v. Heller), I would still oppose them. A government that continues to raid state-legal marijuana dispensaries, keep Gitmo open, and persist with anything in the name of the War on Terror is not one I trust to have the names and addresses of every gun owner in the US.

Since when did the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, become the right to own whatever firearm you want?

Since the day it was written. It was put in the constitution so the people would have the ability to defend themselves from a corrupt and repressive govt.

I'm afraid not. While I don't support additional gun control measures in general, that argument does not hold water. The second amendment clearly ties the right to bear arms to the need for a militia. At the time, a militia was a group that could be mustered BY THE GOVERNMENT to enforce laws or to provide for the common defense. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is pretty clear about the militia and its use. In the US, "militia" has never meant a bunch of armed whackos doing whatever they want to keep the government in check!

The most of us DONT have "assualt rifles". Before you start falling for the media hype... Assualt Rifles are rifles capable of spraying bullets with a single trigger pull. The AR15 is NOT an assualt rifle. You pull the trigger and it puts one round down range, you release the trigger and pull again to send another round down range. Does it look like the military's M16...yes it does but there is a world of difference between the two.

What do you think "AR" stands for in AR15? It is an assault rifle. It comes in a fully automatic as well as a semi-automatic version. The Fully automatic version is illegal.

I probably know more about guns than you are giving me credit for. I do understand the difference and my information does not come from the media.

There isn't a gun law on the books (or ever will be) that will stop someone from doing what they are bent on doing. The criminals don't care about the laws... that's why they are criminals.

Personally I don't think that anything will ever stop criminals from having guns. But better laws (perhaps not more laws or even more restrictive laws) might keep the crazies from getting access to guns. Mexico has some very restrictive gun laws yet drug gangs there have very little problem getting guns (thanks in part to our own government!).

I live in southern Arizona. We are a major smuggling corridor. I don't worry much about drug dealers having guns. They are business people who think rationally. Unless I am trying to interfere with their business, I am not going to get shot.

But I'd love to see laws that could effectively keep guns out of the hands of whackos. They are the ones who kill the innocent people. But, I have not heard any proposals that I think would be effective and for that reason I can't support any increased restrictions on guns.

Since when did the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, become the right to own whatever firearm you want?

Since the day it was written. It was put in the constitution so the people would have the ability to defend themselves from a corrupt and repressive govt.

I'm afraid not. While I don't support additional gun control measures in general, that argument does not hold water. The second amendment clearly ties the right to bear arms to the need for a militia. At the time, a militia was a group that could be mustered BY THE GOVERNMENT to enforce laws or to provide for the common defense. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is pretty clear about the militia and its use. In the US, "militia" has never meant a bunch of armed whackos doing whatever they want to keep the government in check!

There you go... glossing over the fact of one single word "people". It talks about the militia and then talks about the people. It's two different parts to the second amendment.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

The most of us DONT have "assualt rifles". Before you start falling for the media hype... Assualt Rifles are rifles capable of spraying bullets with a single trigger pull. The AR15 is NOT an assualt rifle. You pull the trigger and it puts one round down range, you release the trigger and pull again to send another round down range. Does it look like the military's M16...yes it does but there is a world of difference between the two.

What do you think "AR" stands for in AR15? It is an assault rifle. It comes in a fully automatic as well as a semi-automatic version. The Fully automatic version is illegal.

I probably know more about guns than you are giving me credit for. I do understand the difference and my information does not come from the media.

And apparently you are giving me no credit at all. I have never seen a fully auto AR15 (at least a legal version... some homemade autos). I have fired a tri burst AR15, and there are fully auto M16's or M4's.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

A government that continues to raid state-legal marijuana dispensaries, keep Gitmo open, and persist with anything in the name of the War on Terror is not one I trust to have the names and addresses of every gun owner in the US.

States currently do not have the right to supercede federal law and make marijuana legal. I actually support legalization but your statement suggesting that states can make dispensing legal and somehow invalidate federal law is (currently) incorrect.

And apparently you are giving me no credit at all. I have never seen a fully auto AR15 (at least a legal version... some homemade autos). I have fired a tri burst AR15, and there are fully auto M16's or M4's.

No, I think you basically know what you are talking about when it comes to guns although maybe not the second amendment.

A long, long time ago the AR15 was reputed to stand for "Assault Rifle 15" and was a semiautomatic version of the M16 military rifle. The term now seems to have been "white-washed" so that AR is given all sorts of other meanings that don't sound so military. I know a lot of hunters though and none that I know would consider it a hunting rifle. Similarly, serious target shooters don't want a multi-burst weapon like the AR15.

But really, I don't want to ban AR15s. I just want to keep them and similar weapons out of the hands of whackos.

There isn't a gun law on the books (or ever will be) that will stop someone from doing what they are bent on doing. The criminals don't care about the laws... that's why they are criminals.

Personally I don't think that anything will ever stop criminals from having guns. But better laws (perhaps not more laws or even more restrictive laws) might keep the crazies from getting access to guns. Mexico has some very restrictive gun laws yet drug gangs there have very little problem getting guns (thanks in part to our own government!).

I live in southern Arizona. We are a major smuggling corridor. I don't worry much about drug dealers having guns. They are business people who think rationally. Unless I am trying to interfere with their business, I am not going to get shot.

But I'd love to see laws that could effectively keep guns out of the hands of whackos. They are the ones who kill the innocent people. But, I have not heard any proposals that I think would be effective and for that reason I can't support any increased restrictions on guns.

Personally I don't think that would ever work because someone would have to define crazies and wackos. It would most likely be up to the govt to define it and it's a safe bet they will bend the words to however they like. Just look at "terrorist". Now American Citizens can be detained indefinitely without a trial to prove guilt or innocense.... all the govt has to imply is you're a terrorist. Just look at all the new laws that went into effect after the "occupy" movement. They effectively shut down our ability to peacefully protest our grievences to the govt... thus stepping on the constitution even more.

Whatever laws they would put in place would be more opressive for the rest of the citizens. The only way to stop the wackos is to allow the American citizens to do what the founding fathers wanted. To keep and bear arms.

On another site I visit I posted a link to where a woman freaked because she saw a gun on someone's side. She was in Denny's eating and approached the manager. The manager told them to either leave or take their weapons to the car. Turns out the weapon toting folks were plain clothes detectives from the local police department. They left without eating their meal and reported the incident to the higher ups. NOW the higher ups have banned the local police from eating at that Denny's. So now because of one histerical woman that Denny's won't have the best security around in case of an active shooter. There won't be any officers eating there anymore.

It's folks like that woman that cause problems, and she needs to get over herself. She should have been glad there was someone there with a gun to protect her and her family. But no...... guns are the devil.

If the powers that be would pull their heads out of their collective and allow us to do what the constitution gave us the rights to do, then there wouldn't be as much excessive violence because the law abiding citizens could stop it before it ever got started good.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum